NZCLIMATE & ENVIRO TRUTH NO 95
CONVENTION ON CLIMATE CHANGE
The United Nations
Framework Convention on Climate Change was signed by 154 States
(including our own and plus the European Community) on 9th May 1992. It
came into force on 21 March 1994.
essentially of a statement of Environmentalist religious dogma,
following up the doctrine that humans are destroying the earth (or ,
rather, "the planet"), and calling for action on a principle means of
destruction by humans, the emission of "greenhouse gases" by the
combustion of fossil fuels..
The key concept was Climate
Change. which was defined as follows
Change" is a change of climate which is attributed directly or
indirectly to human activity that alters the composition of the global
atmosphere and which is in addition to natural climate variability
observed over comparable time periods.
They are prepared to
admit that there is a possibility of "change of climate" apart from
"climate change", but the only example they give is "natural
variability", Natural change" and "man-made change" without greenhouse
gases" have been eliminated.
They have thus
eliminated evolution, both of the climate and geology.
The "Intergovernmental Panel of Climate Change, set up in
1988 by the World Meteorological Organisation and the United
Nations Environment Programme has the task, on the face of it, to
investigate only "climate change", i.e. man-made change caused by
increase of greenhouse gases. However, the scientists involved could
not see how they could do this without trying to separate it from the
other climate influences, including the two which they are not supposed
to believe in. So they had a footnote on page 1 of "Climate Change 2001
"Climate change in
IPCC usage refers to any change in climate over time, whether due to
natural variability or as a result of human activity"
This makes two
concessions, They are prepared to study "natural variability", but not
prepared to admit that there is such a thing as "natural change", so
they, also, are against evolution "Natural changes" can only be
"variable", a concept held firmly by medieval scholars but firmly
rejected by scientists since the days of Hutton and Lyall.
As an important
extra addition, they are prepared to study changes due to "human
activity", which includes activities which do not involve changes in
greenhouse gases. But when they talk about "human activity" in their
conclusions everybody assumes that there is only one kind of human
activity, emission of greenhouse gases. Such "human" influences
on the climate as pollution, agriculture, or urban development can be
In practice they get
all mixed up. They are forced, grudgingly, to admit that the most
important greenhouse gas is water vapour, and its side influence,
clouds; and changes in these are not, on the face of it, due to human
greenhouse gas emissions. But they rescue this problem by calling both
of these "feedbacks" to human greenhouse gas effects, so they are
miraculously converted into "climate change".
Then they run into
aerosols, which include the extra clouds caused by human emissions of
sulphur, and "black clouds" caused by human pollution. Neither of these
are, strictly, "climate change" caused by greenhouse gas emissions, but
they find them useful because the effects are so little known that they
can be used to fit curves into observation sequences by adding or
subtracting just the right amounts..
What they cannot do is
admit that human influences such as energy emissions, urbanisation,
land-use change or calibration errors might be responsible for
"changes of climate".
So, in the end, they
endorse the environmentalist dogma that all changes are due to human
greenhouse gas emissions, so then they can use their models which
depend on this assumption. Once you admit that there are "changes of
climate' that are not included in the models, the models become
The IPCC get
themselves in an awful mess over their definitions. In the "Glossary"
of "Climate Change 2001 they define ":Climate" as follows.
"Climate in a narrow
sense is usually defined as the "average weather', or more rigorously,
as the statistical description in terms of the mean and variability of
relevant quantities over a period of time ranging from months to
thousands or millions of years. The classical period is 30 years, as
defined by the World Meteorological Organisation (WMO). These
quantities are most often surface variables such as temperature,
precipitation and wind. Climate in a wider sense is the state,
including a statistical description, of the "climate system"..
Although they talk of
"millions of years", in practice, they like to claim that any change
that takes place over 1000 years is "unprecedented". They do not define
"weather", but they do try to define "Climate System". as follows.
"The climate system is
the highly complex system consisting of five major components: the
atmosphere, the hydrosphere, the cryosphere, the land surface and the
biosphere, and the interactions between them. The climate system
evolves in time under the influence of its own internal dynamics and
because of external forcings such as volcanic eruptions, solar
variations and human-induced forcings such as the changing composition
of the atmosphere and land-use changes''.
Naughty naughty, We
now have an admission of evolution, and even human-induced changes such
as land-use changes which do not involve greenhouse gases. How did that
Then what about
"Climate change refers
to a statistically significant variation in either the mean state of
the climate or in its variability, persisting for an extended period
(typically decades or longer). Climate change may be due to natural
internal processes or external forcings, or to persistent anthropogenic
changes in the composition of the atmosphere or in land use.
Note that the
Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) in its article 1,
defines "climate change" as "a change of climate which is attributed
directly or indirectly to human activity that alters the
composition of the global atmosphere and which is in addition to
natural climate variability observed under comparable time periods" The
UNFCCC thus makes a distinction between "climate change" attributable
to human activities altering the atmospheric composisition and "climate
variability" attributable to natural causes"
What a mess!!!. To
start with, we are not allowed to know what "climate change" IS, only
what it "refers to". Then there is talk of "statistically significant"
a concept which is totally absent from all IPCC "attributions". Indeed,
they even argue that such a concept is unnecessary for "climate
change", and they never give guidance on the level of significance that
might be required.
Then we "refer to" the
"variability" of the "mean state of the climate", having already
defined "climate" as "the average weather". We now have to contend with
the variability of the average of the average weather, over,
"typically", "decades or longer".
There is then a
complete denial of the UNFCC definition. where they admit that
"climate change" may be due to "natural internal processes", and even
"anthropogenic changes" in "land-use", something definitely excluded by
the UNFCCC. They then quote the UNFCCC definition without mentioning
that they disagree with it.
Not even that is all.
Here is their definition of "Climate Variability"
refers to variations in the mean state and other statistics (such as
standard deviations, the occurrence of extremes etc.) of the climate on
all temporal and spatial scales beyond that of individual weather
events. Variability may be due to natural internal processes within the
climate system (internal variability) or to variations in
natural or anthropogenic external forcing ((external variability)"
Again, it only "refers
to" and we have another variability of the average of an average,
plus the variability of standard deviations, occurrences of extremes
etc. beyond "individual weather events", whatever they are. We also
have the variability of "anthropogenic external forcings" as well as
On this quagmire is
the "science" of "Climate Change" founded.
Thank goodness that
"Climate Change 2001" contains one sensible statement; in Chapter 1,
"The fact that the
global mean temperature has increased since the late 19th century and
that other trends have been observed does not necessarily mean that an
anthropogenic effect on the climate system has been identified. Climate
has always varied on all time-scales, so the observed change may be
natural. A more detailed analysis is required to provide evidence of a
Apart from the fact
that the increase in the "global mean temperature" is largely already
"attributable" to the "anthropogenic" effect of "land-use change", this
is the only IPCC statement that should be taken seriously. It means
that ALL of the computer-based climate models are worthless, because
they assume that every change in the climate is exclusively caused by
human changes in greenhouse gases. Why have
politicians, media commentators the general public, and even many
scientists not realised this?
75 Silverstream Road
Phone/Fax 064 4 9735939
"It's not the things you don't know that fool you.
It's the things you do know that aint so"